Sunday, September 21, 2008

Not even the Independent article referenced by the footnote* makes this claim, instead calling Eagleton "the man who succeeded F R Leavis as Britain's most influential academic critic" (emphasis added).

Is a claim that someone is a country's "most influential academic" even capable of meaning? Even if the Indie had made this claim, would the unevidenced assertion of the country's most avowedly partisan newspaper merit the use of the word "generally"?

4 comments:

Fish has been wavering back and forth since he retired a few years ago. He does crap like this, the he turns around and writes grumpy columns demanding that teachers drop the politics and get back to teaching their classes.